1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to the field of collaborative computing and more particularly to activity-centric collaborative computing.
2. Description of the Related Art
Collaborative computing refers to the use by two or more end users of a computing application in order to achieve a common goal. Initially envisioned as a document sharing technology among members of a small workgroup in the corporate environment, collaborative computing has grown today to include a wide variety of technologies arranged strategically to facilitate collaboration among groups as small as two people, or as large as a world-wide community. Thus, different collaborative applications may focus at groups of different sizes. No longer merely restricted to document sharing, the modern collaborative environment can include document libraries, chat rooms, video conferencing, application sharing, and discussion forums to name only a few.
A collaborative computing application enjoys substantial advantages over a more conventional, individualized computing application. Specifically, at present it is rare that a goal of any importance is entrusted and reliant upon a single person. In fact, many goals and objectives can be achieved only through the participation of a multiplicity of individuals, each serving a specified role or roles in the process. Consequently, to provide computing tools designed for use only by one of the individuals in the process can be short sighted and can ignore important potential contributions lying among the other individuals involved in the process.
Personal information managers and project management systems represent two such computing applications which attempt to manage a process leading to an objective, leveraging of the participation of many individuals in the process. Considering first the personal information manager (PIM), in a PIM, a single end user can establish a calendar of events and a to-do list of tasks which are to be performed by the end user. To the extent that a task is to be performed by another individual, the end user only can establish a task reminding the end user to monitor the completion of the task by the other individual. PIMs do permit the calendaring of events among different individuals, but the calendaring operation only can “invite” others to calendar the event within the personal information manager of other users.
Project management systems, by comparison, provide means for an individual or a group to define and track project stages with strictly-specified interdependencies. In a traditional project management system, the phases of a project can be defined from start to finish and a timeline can be generated for the project. Utilizing the timeline, it can be determined when particular phases of the project have been completed and when a subsequently scheduled phase of the project can begin. To the extent that the timing of one phase of the project changes, the remaining project phases can be adjusted to accommodate the changed timing. Similarly, if the project requires the use of limited resources, and the allocation of one such resource changes, the remaining project phases that depend on that resource can be adjusted to accommodate the reduction of that resource. A major strength of project management systems is their maintenance of these kinds of strict interdependencies. In addition, in many project management systems, particular people can be assigned to particular phases of the project.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, individualized PIMs and project management systems do not account for the actual nature of a coordinated set of collaborative tasks conducted by people, such as an activity. An activity, unlike a typical project or workflow, refers to objects, actions, and persons in the real world, and provides a computerized representation of selected aspects of those objects, actions, and persons. As is well known, human work is notoriously situational and changeable. Humans discover new aspects of problems, develop new understandings of constraints, adapt to changed conditions, and inform their colleagues about these new circumstances.
Regarding this changeable, re-interpretable, shared human work, conventional task management systems have failed to provide a flexible, collaborative computerized representation of a coordinated set of collaborative tasks. Rather, PIMs provide merely flexible, but private representations of collaborative tasks. By comparison, project management systems provide shared representations of project components in which one user typically specifies a fixed set of components and their interdependencies for use by other users. Furthermore, in project management systems, other users are relegated to the task of updating not the interdependencies, but merely the status of the specified components within those strict interdependencies.
Modern collaboration tools address the deficiencies of the PIM and project manager by combining e-mail with other functions to integrate e-mail seamlessly into end user daily activities in an activity-centric collaboration tool. Activity-centric collaboration tools recognize that it is not enough to help people manage their e-mail, but to help people manage their work by associating communications and information feeds around a topic or activity. In an activity-centric collaboration tool, e-mail messages, synchronous communication such as instant messages, screen images, files, folders and to-do lists can be combined into an activity thread by a project team allowing the project team to switch easily between asynchronous and real-time collaboration.
In this regard, an activity thread might include the messages, chats and files exchanged among members of a team participating in a group project. More specifically, an activity object such as a task description can be associated with meta-data, which can include for example one or more persons related to that activity, their respective roles such as “assigner” and “assignee,” and various dates such as the date-of-assignment, the date-due, the date-actually-completed, and so on.
Despite the advancement of the collaboration tool to include the notion of activity threads, recent field research has shown that, given a choice, users spontaneously choose task/activity objects to represent work only one-fifth of the time, while choosing other object types (“non-activity objects”) such as document or chat to represent work eighty percent of the time. Yet, users often attach task/activity meaning to those objects not represented by a task/activity object—especially documents. Accordingly, the paradigm of the activity thread remains lost upon a substantial population of users most in need of the activity paradigm.